Equifax has agreed to pay $100,000,000 into a non-reversionary settlement fund over a computer coding error that left some consumers’ credit scores and credit attributes different from what they should have been for about three weeks in spring 2022. The settlement administrator’s website sets the deadline to submit a claim at December 28, 2026. The agreement is still a proposal, because a federal judge has yet to give it final approval.
Affiliate links — we may earn a commission.
Equifax credit reporting settlement. The Settlement & Refund Recovery System includes the four-date rule for reading a settlement notice and a claim log and payment tracker.
Click here to log the Equifax claim deadline and payment in the claim log and payment tracker →
Twenty-two days in March and April 2022 that Equifax calls the OMS Issue
The case is In re Equifax Fair Credit Reporting Act Litigation, No. 1:22-cv-3072-LMM-CCB, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The administrator’s pages describe the trigger as “a computer coding issue that Equifax experienced between March 17, 2022 and April 8, 2022.” That span runs 22 days, which is the three-week error in the headline, and the settlement papers refer to it as the OMS Issue.
The class is defined by what happened to a score during that window, not by who holds an Equifax account. According to the settlement’s FAQ, the class covers “all individuals in the United States for whom a credit score or credit attribute that differed from what it would have been absent the OMS Issue, according to the OMS Analysis, was reported by Equifax to a third party in connection with a Class Transaction.” Each phrase in that sentence narrows the group. The score or attribute must have differed, the difference must have been reported to a third party such as a lender, and the OMS Analysis, an analysis done for the case, is the yardstick for whether it differed.
How the $100,000,000 fund is divided, and the $95 to $280 estimate
The FAQ states that “Equifax has agreed to pay $100,000,000 into a non-reversionary Settlement Fund.” Non-reversionary means that money left in the fund is not returned to Equifax, so the full amount stays committed to the case. The same page says that every class member who submits a valid and timely claim form “will receive an equal (pro rata) share,” and that no tiers or categories exist. A consumer whose score moved a little and one whose score moved a lot would be paid the same.
The administrator does not promise a figure. Its FAQ gives an estimate of payments “approximately between $95 and $280, but the actual amount may be higher or lower,” and ties the result to how many valid claims arrive and what costs the court approves. The estimate is the administrator’s own and sits in the FAQ, not on the home page, which lists no payment amount at all.
Part of the fund will not reach claimants. Class Counsel, the firms Girard Sharp LLP, Gibbs Mura LLP, DiCello Levitt LLP and Caplan Cobb LLC, say in the FAQ that they will seek “attorneys’ fees of up to one-third of the Settlement Fund ($33,333,333), plus reimbursement of litigation expenses of up to $500,000.” If the judge granted both requests in full, simple arithmetic leaves about $66.2 million before the cost of administering the settlement. The court decides the fee request, and the FAQ describes it only as something counsel will ask for.
A settlement that is not final until a January 2027 hearing
The dates and deadlines page lists three fixed dates. Claims are due December 28, 2026. Requests to be excluded and objections are due November 27, 2026. The final approval hearing is set for Friday, January 22, 2027, at 2:00 p.m. at the Northern District of Georgia courthouse in the Richard B. Russell Federal Building, 75 Ted Turner Drive SW, Atlanta.
Payment follows only if the settlement clears that hearing. The administrator’s wording is conditional: the settlement takes effect “if the settlement becomes final and effective.” For that reason the page treats the claim form as a step to complete now, while the money depends on a ruling still months away. The pages do not say how long distribution would take after approval.
Anyone who objects keeps the right to file a claim. The page says an objector “may still submit a Claim Form.” A person who opts out gets the opposite result and receives no payment.
Two deadlines a month apart and a class that Equifax’s own analysis defines
Two clocks run in this case. November 27, 2026, closes both the window to ask the court for exclusion and the window to object. December 28, 2026, closes the window to submit a claim. A consumer weighing whether to stay in the class has to decide about exclusion a month before the claim form closes, and the pages say plainly that exclusion means no payment.
The second difficulty is knowing whether a claim belongs to the class at all. Membership turns on the OMS Analysis, so a consumer cannot settle the question by recalling that a lender pulled a report between March 17 and April 8, 2022. The FAQ and the dates page describe the claim form, which can be filed online at the administrator’s site or downloaded and mailed, but they do not list documents a claimant must attach. A claimant ends up with a form to complete, a deadline to record and a payment of uncertain size, since the pro rata share depends on how many valid claims the administrator approves.
The route through the administrator’s own site, equifaxfaircreditreportingsettlement.com, is the free one, and nothing on its pages asks for payment to file.
Open class-action settlements and the services that file for members
MoneyPilot is a paid subscription service that lists open class-action settlements and shows which ones may match a member. It files claim forms for members and tracks deadlines and payout status. The Equifax credit reporting settlement is the kind of open claim window such a service lists.
See how MoneyPilot lists open settlements like the Equifax credit reporting claim →
Drafted with AI assistance from the Equifax settlement administrator’s website, then checked against its pages before publication.
Warren Cohen is a finance writer based in Phoenix, Arizona, covering personal finance topics including credit, banking, and beginner investing. He earned his degree in business administration from Arizona State University and began his career working in consumer finance, where he gained direct experience with lending and credit systems. He now writes for personal finance websites and fintech platforms, focusing on clear, practical content that helps readers make informed financial decisions.
